Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds the crucial two-phase behavior: nothing takes effect until the returned unsigned transaction is signed and submitted. That is meaningful context beyond the annotations, though it does not say what happens to omitted settings or whether updates overwrite prior values.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, zero waste, and the field list is front-loaded before the workflow caveat. Every clause earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers what an agent needs: the fields it sets, the fact that the result is an unsigned intent, and the exact follow-up tools required to make it effective. Combined with full schema coverage and annotations, nothing essential is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so every parameter is already documented, including the signer's SS58 address and the string-encoded integer constraints. The description only restates the field purposes and mentions the transaction is prepared for `signer`, adding little beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('Set') and resource (social username, interests, feed sizes), so the agent knows exactly what is mutated. It does not explicitly name the confusingly similar siblings (geode_messaging_update_settings, geode_profile_update_your_profile), but the enumerated fields make the social scope self-evident.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Clearly frames the workflow context: this only prepares an intent, and the agent must follow up with geode-local-signer and geode_submit_intent. It gives strong positive guidance on how to use it, but no explicit when-not or direct comparison to the other *_update_settings siblings.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.